Jerry Falwell offers a "gracious" correction to the Jerusalem Post

[theworm[$]]

and while he does mention other religions, he specifically talks about the Jewish people and the state of Israel.

[Redlass]

Thank you, wivabef. Yes, you said in a nutshell what I was trying to say.

I suppose it is partly because I get most of my news through the Internet that I'm able to block out what I don't want to see. Falwell has no credibility as far as I'm concerned, so if it hadn't have been for the link here, I wouldn't have seen this story. Is media coverage of him unbalanced? It could be. I have no basis on which to speak to that.

As for the "Left Behind" series. Yick. I refuse to read them because I think they are perversions of my faith. They sensationalize something about which Scripture emphasizes that we will not know. And the focus on the Last Days takes away from the conversation of what our faith should be doing for us in the here and now.

But then, I consider Last Days sensationalizing as irrelevant to my faith as I consider what happens in the next life. I'm not a Christian because of what will happen in the next life; I'm a Christian because of what it means in this life.

But back to Falwell: He mentions Jews because of the specific instance. Someone wrote that he said Jews were the exception to what he considers the rule because of dual covenant theology. He clarified that he does not believe they are the exception.

If someone had written an article stating that he believed Latter-Day Saints had a newer covenant than his and therefore did not have to believe in the divinity of Christ, then he would have said the same thing but with Latter-Day Saints specifically. Well, and I don't think he's made many pilgrimages to Utah.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Redlass said

As for whether anyone else thinks or says that I'm going to hell, that hardly touches me, does it? They're not the ones who'll get to decide no matter what they say or think.

Yes, but if someone thinks you are going to hell, then they might not think they need to treat you very decently while you are on the earth.

Also, can you only respect someone you think is going to heaven?

If God thinks someone is too icky to let into his nice heaven, then certainly that person would be too icky to let into my nice country club (or nice neighborhood, or nice university, or nice nation).

(I say theoretically, not believing in heaven or hell.)

Really, why should anyone respect someone they think that God has rejected? If God himself has judged someone unworthy, who are we, as mere mortals, to disagree?

Why is a statement about what happens in the next life an indication of the level of respect that you have for someone in this life?

Because saying that someone is going to hell is saying that God doesn't want them. That seems like more than enough reason to disrespect that person, if you believe in God and believe that his judgement is valid. If God doesn't respect them, why should you?

Anyway, not actually believing in heaven or hell, from my perspective what is the most creepy is people taking pleasure in imagining that I will be punished and suffer. And, oh yeah, they "love" me for it. Yuck!

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Redlass said

As for the "Left Behind" series. Yick. I refuse to read them because I think they are perversions of my faith. They sensationalize something about which Scripture emphasizes that we will not know. And the focus on the Last Days takes away from the conversation of what our faith should be doing for us in the here and now.

But then, I consider Last Days sensationalizing as irrelevant to my faith as I consider what happens in the next life. I'm not a Christian because of what will happen in the next life; I'm a Christian because of what it means in this life.

Then what I was saying doesn't apply to you.

Fact is, though, that the "Left Behind" series is extremely popular, and I think it's had a real influence. And Falwell, AFAIK, does subscribe to that view of the future, so I think his remarks about "the Jews" need to be taken in that context. Certainly, everything he says about Israel needs to be understand as coming from within a "Last Days" context.

But back to Falwell: He mentions Jews because of the specific instance. Someone wrote that he said Jews were the exception to what he considers the rule because of dual covenant theology. He clarified that he does not believe they are the exception.

If someone had written an article stating that he believed Latter-Day Saints had a newer covenant than his and therefore did not have to believe in the divinity of Christ, then he would have said the same thing but with Latter-Day Saints specifically.

Speculative. We don't know that he would have necessarily bothered to write and publish a "gracious" clarification piece in that situation. My impression, as I've said, is that he IS fixated on "the Jews."

Well, and I don't think he's made many pilgrimages to Utah.

Lucky for Utah, IMO.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Actually, in the case of Judaism/Christianity, there are two reasons for Christians to be nice to their Jewish bretheren.

1) God will judge Christians on how they treat everyone, whether Christian or not
2) Jews have the potential to become Christians. It's not like bigotry towards black people who, Michael Jackson notwithstanding, generally will remain black their entire lives; Jews might be "saved" and accept Jesus before their deaths and therefore join in all the proported benefits of said Christianity. It's not a permanent "God will never want you, you're rejected" thought process, it's "You need to come believe what we believe if you want eternal life."

[AuntieEmma[$]]

mjfrombuffalo said

Actually, in the case of Judaism/Christianity, there are two reasons for Christians to be nice to their Jewish bretheren.

1) God will judge Christians on how they treat everyone, whether Christian or not

Ok.

2) Jews have the potential to become Christians. It's not like bigotry towards black people who, Michael Jackson notwithstanding, generally will remain black their entire lives; Jews might be "saved" and accept Jesus before their deaths and therefore join in all the proported benefits of said Christianity. It's not a permanent "God will never want you, you're rejected" thought process, it's "You need to come believe what we believe if you want eternal life."

But this has enormous potential to turn very ugly very fast.

You're citing this as a reason why Christians would want to be nice to Jews. But it could (and historically often has been) just the opposite -- it's been used as the rationale for the widespread slaughter of Jews. See the Inquisition, for example. (Which is why Falwell's declarations of "love" for "the Jews" seem to me to be smarmy at best, and scary at worst.)

Just as strongly as some Christians yearn to convert Jews to Christianity, many Jews yearn to remain Jewish. That conflict has all too often been "solved" with violence against the Jews who didn't give in.

[Redlass]

AuntieEmma said

Yes, but if someone thinks you are going to hell, then they might not think they need to treat you very decently while you are on the earth.

Well, that would go against the rest of what Christianity teaches, but I acknowledge that there are those who do so.

If God thinks someone is too icky to let into his nice heaven, then certainly that person would be too icky to let into my nice country club (or nice neighborhood, or nice university, or nice nation).

(I say theoretically, not believing in heaven or hell.)

Really, why should anyone respect someone they think that God has rejected? If God himself has judged someone unworthy, who are we, as mere mortals, to disagree?

This is where we're getting into a fine point, but it is an important (I'd go so far as to say ESSENTIAL fine point.)

Christian theology (speaking broadly and recognizing that there is a lot of dissension about what is "correct" and "incorrect" theology) doesn't believe that God rejects anyone. Rather, the teaching is that God loves everyone but it is the person who choose whether or not to reject God.

The whole doctrine of free will is that God doesn't force us to accept Him or force us to enter heaven. Rather, He offers heaven as a gift which we can accept or reject.

As far as how *I* am commanded to treat someone, that is irrelevant to whether or not they have satisfied whatever I think the requirements of salvation are. I am commanded to love everyone as I love myself--no exceptions. I've also been taught that God loves everyone equally--He doesn't find anyone "icky" nor does He want anyone sent away from His heaven.

I apologize if this comes across as a sermon, but it is an important point to understand why there is the disconnect.





Because saying that someone is going to hell is saying that God doesn't want them. That seems like more than enough reason to disrespect that person, if you believe in God and believe that his judgement is valid. If God doesn't respect them, why should you?

Anyway, not actually believing in heaven or hell, from my perspective what is the most creepy is people taking pleasure in imagining that I will be punished and suffer. And, oh yeah, they "love" me for it. Yuck![/quote]

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Just as strongly as some Christians yearn to convert Jews to Christianity, many Jews yearn to remain Jewish. That conflict has all too often been "solved" with violence against the Jews who didn't give in.

Granted. But this was? is? about Falwell and as much as I don't like the guy and disagree with him, he isn't calling for people to use violence against Jews. The word "bigoted" also sort of hit a wrong note to me, since I see bigotry as something used against an unmutable characteristic shared by another demographic group. I don't think Falwell hates Jews, I think he and other Christian religious leaders don't like the Jewish belief system - sees them as people whose beliefs (meaning actions, not intrinsic or genetic characteristics) are misguided. To me, there is a HUGE difference between the two.

[drmomentum[$]]

I object, because that implies an American Race, just like in the theme song of "American Dad."

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

I'm trying to say that there's a difference between attacking the person and attacking the behavior - you know, like how we try to tell our kids "you don't hate Stevie, you just hate when he hits you." Or what we talk about in couples counseling. Etc. Separate the person from the behavior.

Let me give you an example. Say that you, as an American, have decided that being American is a part of your identity,

Not the same. Hubby, for example, cannot decide that being black will no longer be part of his identity.

As much as it pains me to defend Falwell, from his point of view and the point of view of other religious leaders who say similar things, they do not see Judaism as an immutable characteristic. They see practicing Judaism or accepting Jesus or going on pilgrimage to Mecca or what have you as behaviors/belief systems that can potentially be changed so everyone can go to Heaven as one big happy family. (and from their point of view, they're really wishing the best outcome for everyone, based on what they believe has to happen for this best outcome to occur)

From my point of view, it's Falwell's right to have his opinion, as tactless and ham-handed as he wants to express it. It seemed, though, that in this thread Falwell (and those who tried to explain his possible reasons for what he said) are being attacked as bigots for their religious beliefs (or being sympathetic to bigots). I can attend a business meeting with an (I'm not sure what type of) Jewish man who will not shake women's hands because of his religious beliefs without thinking he's a sexist because I can understand his beliefs, even though I don't agree with them. I can even explain the man's beliefs to others and encourage other women not to be offended by this man's actions. I'm not sure why the same intellectual understanding can't be applied here to Falwell, at least some degree.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

drmomentum said

I object

To what? (Not clear what you are referring to)

because that implies an American Race

"That" being what I said???

If so, then you may have misunderstood what I'm getting at. I'm saying that my identity as a Jew is exactly analogous to my identity as an American. Neither one is based on "intrinisic or genetic characteristics." Both are based on personal identity, childhood training, and a sense of what my place is in the chain of history. Neither one is "mutable" in the sense that I will not give either up, unless forced too, and even then I'm not sure (depends on whether I would have the courage to be a martyr -- though I have to admit I I guess I probably wouldn't have the courage in that situation.)

[Redlass]

(Psst...I think JP was making a joke.)

And I'm going to delete my last post. It really takes this discussion off into a different topic and it isn't my intent to derail.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Redlass said

Tell me, Emma, must I, because of the sins of my spiritual ancestors, be forever labeled a Jew-killer? Or is it possible for there to be discussions today between the two faiths?

There is no way, in my opinion, to have fruitful discussions that start with the premise that Jews are going to hell.

There is lots of other stuff to discuss, but that's just a deal-breaker, in my opinion.

I will argue with Christians who justify anti-Semitism based on "Jews killed Christ." (Primarily because there is a theological fallacy in that argument, but also because no Jew living today had any hand in Christ's death.) But I also don't know how to continue a discussion that seems to be based on, "Christians kill Jews by the millions, therefore every statement of faith that they make is motivated by that hatred."

I would obviously have no objections to statements of faith such as "Jesus says to help the poor," "Jesus says to be compassionate," "God is love," "Love your neighbor as yourself," etc. etc. There's a lot of stuff going on in the world besides Jews not being Christians, and there are zillions of statements of faith that have nothing to do with that.

But when it comes to statements of faith that have to do with Christians being better than Jews, or Jews being contemptible except to the extent that they might be "salvagable" as future Christians, then there is nothing for me to discuss "graciously."

I also think that what happened in Jewish history matters today because the conflicts are by no means resolved, and what happened before could happen again.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Redlass said

And I'm going to delete my last post. It really takes this discussion off into a different topic and it isn't my intent to derail.

Then I'll take my response down too, because now it's standing without context.

[Redlass]

I agree that history matters. I think it essential that we know the history and understand its conflicts. But I think there is a problem with saying that everyone is guilty of what has happened in the past.

Do you see the difference between "I think there is one way to heaven and this is it--no exceptions" and "Jews are going to hell."

Falwell is saying the former, not the latter.

I would also add that Christians don't believe you have to stop being Jewish in order to be Christian. I accept and respect, though, that most Jews believe that you must.

What I am hearing is that it is unacceptable, bigoted, and intolerant for Christians to ever state publically, "We believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation."

Is this true? Because if so, then I've got to say that we've just told most mainstream Christians that they'd better never state their credo out loud. How is this not religious intolerance?

[Redlass]

AuntieEmma said

Then I'll take my response down too, because now it's standing without context.

Sorry. I was trying to get that up before you replied.
Perhaps we should open a different thread, though I admit my heart aches to do so.

[hadassahchana[$]]

mjfrombuffalo said

It seemed, though, that in this thread Falwell (and those who tried to explain his possible reasons for what he said) are being attacked as bigots for their religious beliefs (or being sympathetic to bigots). I can attend a business meeting with an (I'm not sure what type of) Jewish man who will not shake women's hands because of his religious beliefs without thinking he's a sexist because I can understand his beliefs, even though I don't agree with them. I can even explain the man's beliefs to others and encourage other women not to be offended by this man's actions. I'm not sure why the same intellectual understanding can't be applied here to Falwell, at least some degree.

The main difference being that the Orthodox man is practicing his faith without judging you in any way, is not assuming that you are headed south after you die, and in fact would not be particularly interested in proselytizing in any way.

If he took out a full-apge ad in the NYT stating that MJ shakles hands with men and that therefore, although he loves her, he feels sad because he knows she'll be spending eternity as extra-crispy, that would be offensive.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

mjfrombuffalo said

As much as it pains me to defend Falwell, from his point of view and the point of view of other religious leaders who say similar things, they do not see Judaism as an immutable characteristic.

But from the point of view of many Jews it IS immutable.

I was brought up with stories of the Jewish martyrs who, when given the choice of converting to Christianity or being killed, chose death.

As I said, I'm kind of a chicken, and if I were in that situation, I probably would cave in, rather than be killed.

But just in terms of honoring the people who DID choose death over forced conversion, I don't feel that I have the right to just throw my Judaism away, in what is a much easier situation where I'm not in a convert-or-die situation.

So Falwell and others, as you say, see Judaism as a mutable characteristic. And they also appear to believe they have a God-given duty to go ahead and do what they can to try to change that mutable characteristic. At the same time, many Jews see Judaism as an immutable characteristic and some are willing to do whatever it takes, including giving up their lives, to defend their right to be who they are. How does this get resolved? What assurances are there that Falwell and others WON'T resort to force?

Something has to give. What will it be?

From my point of view, it's Falwell's right to have his opinion, as tactless and ham-handed as he wants to express it. It seemed, though, that in this thread Falwell (and those who tried to explain his possible reasons for what he said) are being attacked as bigots for their religious beliefs (or being sympathetic to bigots). I can attend a business meeting with an (I'm not sure what type of) Jewish man who will not shake women's hands because of his religious beliefs without thinking he's a sexist because I can understand his beliefs, even though I don't agree with them. I can even explain the man's beliefs to others and encourage other women not to be offended by this man's actions.

In my opinion, he is sexist, and the action is offensive. (There's plenty of sexism in Orthodox Judaism, in my opinion.)

I'm not sure why the same intellectual understanding can't be applied here to Falwell, at least some degree.

No sympathy for Falwell here.